Arminillo said:
"Water should be free for all" yet taxing it isnt going in the reverse of that? You said yourself that water should be obtainable even for the poorest person in Flint, and you know what they needed to drink due to the problems with their water supply? Bottled water. All im trying to say is that taxing water bottles would only harm people. The fact of life is that water isnt free, and that bottled water is not a luxury. On a final note, taxes dont work on universal basis, if a tax doesnt include something, it doesnt include something, thats how it works. https://www.statista.com/statistics/252408/market-share-of-bottled-still-water-in-the-us-by-brand/ |
First off your critical thinking and reading skills seem to be lacking. If your going to read what I post and turn it into your own skewed view then don't bother responding. If you want to have an educational debate then I'm all for that.
btw me stating "water should be free for all" is an opinion and I believe should be a basic human right. Just cause I'm arguing on one subject about taxes and maybe bottle water should be taxed, should not be seen as related directly to my free water statement. The world is not black and white, most things fall somewhere in the middle. And just because taxes don't work on a universal bases (they actually do somewhat in a lot of cases), doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I don't have all the answers but only through debate can things be worked out, on the other hand you don't have the right answers either.
*edit* sorry if my original response came of rather harsh. I will not delete or edit the original text as I still think the point stands. Also I'm a person of my word and will not hide behind what I said by editing it out.

FootballFan - "GT has never been bigger than Halo. Now do a comparison between the two attach ratios and watch GT get stomped by Halo. Reach will sell 5 million more than GT5. Quote me on it."







